So that's a "no" then... No, you cannot explain your reasoning any further; that's pretty much what I had figured. Thanks for clearing up any hope I had that you might be at least slightly informed about your statements.

Somehow, in an incredible twist of human reasoning, you've convinced yourself that considering an anti-abortion stance to be typical of the American Neoconservative movement means I hate Jewish people.

And who was that idiot that brought abortion to this discussion? Shame on you..Yes, shame on me for demonstrating that economic control and abortion control stem from the same fundamental motive: hypothetical social betterment.

Shame on me for suggesting that we consider these recommendations objectively and consider that we are being hypocritical.

Shame on me for relating economic control to social control and hurting everyone's feelings.

OldOllie: That's because they live in centrally planned socialist $#!+holes. """

Right, and your country has the best social mobility around.. "if you want to live the American Dream, move to Denmark" on wise man once said.. USA is pisshole when it comes to opportunities provided evenly. But then again, you remarks have proven time and time again that you simply don't want any equality because it makes you feel inadequate. Poor WILL consume, they pretty much HAVE to spend most of their money on food. Rich spend a fraction of their money, there is just so much person actually needs. So in that sense, poor creates the jobs while rich try to minimize expenses and thus destroy jobs.

And who was that idiot that brought abortion to this discussion? Shame on you..

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:31:26 AMLook at the BRICS, there a large part of this is down to how countries are run as well as resources in those countries. When the countries get more accountable government's those countries can distribute the wealth better. Otherwise the money goes to some crackpot president and get's hoarded back as they live it up in the west.

Monday, April 15, 2013 9:12:59 PMPoverty and hunger are life and death issues.Fine, let's consider abortion then. In the rationale of many, this is also a life-or-death matter. Thus, it meets your requirements.

For Neocons (generalizing), outlawing abortion saves millions of lives each year. Therefore, they justify that it is correct, despite having no authority to do so, because it saves lives.

For you, redistributing the excess wealth saves millions of lives each year. Therefore, you justify that it is correct, despite having no authority to do so, because it saves lives.

Where's the difference?

Please don't debase it by comparing it to gay marriage.Oh yes - because anyone who compares marriage control to economic control is somehow debasing or devaluing the problem at hand; I suspect this is untrue. Rather, I suspect that you're simply irritated that I've compared you to a Neocon.

DO I ever say I am who should be in control of any of this or that any of my ideas are the only way to do things?No. Rather, you imply that someone with identical viewpoints "pull the trigger" for you. Please excuse me for not seeing the difference.

So no background checks?Not the point at all. The point of my questioning is that you seem to be under the impression that your viewpoint is somehow superior and should therefore be implemented - forcefully - without any sort of authority to do so. Again, I ask you, who are you to make such an implication?

In one post you are removing any credit or respect I usually set aside for your rational counterpoints.I really couldn't care less what your opinion of me is; I will not lose any sleep over this I assure you.

Monday, April 15, 2013 5:41:28 PMHolyGod-" I'm just postulating a hypothetical of a situation humanity as a whole agreed on."

Okay. I don't agree. So humanity 'as a whole' did not agree.

Even if you DID get 50.0000001% of the people to agree, the simple fact is you would not redistribute anything. That wealth over and above what they are 'allowed' to keep would simply not be generated.

Next unworkable idea?

HolyGod-"However $2 a day would certainly NOT make the poor rich"

Okay, you send $2 a day to some poor person in some poohole country run by a dictator or some such. You will be giving said dictator $730 a year,and the poor person will get nothing.

"This reasoning is no better than a Neocon attempting to criminalize gay marriage."

That is such bulls.hit. In one post you are removing any credit or respect I usually set aside for your rational counterpoints.

Poverty and hunger are life and death issues. Gun control is a life and death issue. Gay marriage is a pointless wedge issue so conservatives can drive homophobes and the overly religious to the polls.

Whether or not two gay guys get married doesn't adversely affect a single person on the planet except for the fact that they think it is gross.

Over a million children will starve to death this month. Please don't debase it by comparing it to gay marriage.

A guy having random hypothetical debates on the internet. DO I ever say I am who should be in control of any of this or that any of my ideas are the only way to do things?

"Who are you to tell me to get a background check or to have a magazine with less than (X) number of rounds?"

So no background checks? Get out of jail and stop by the gun store on your way home? This kind of ridiculousness is why it is so hard to keep guns out of criminals hands. People like you piss and moan if we want to find out if you are a criminal before you buy the gun.

Monday, April 15, 2013 4:17:35 PMI dont want to say its a bias statistic but reality is out of 100 people at least 5 are raging alcoholics, drug fiends, another 10 are on disability or welfare(not sure what the USA equivalent is).. Assuming none of those 100 people are underage or elderly dependent on social services.. theres also the sick, retarded and disabled people incapable of generating income...On the world stage does this include women in certain 'traditional' countries that may not possess wealth?

Im all for greater wealth distribution but prefer statements that include the details.

"If you set a certain amount that an individual 'allowed to have' (more on that below) called 'X', once 'X' is reached, that person would quit producing."

Agreed. However, I discussed this more in depth in a previous post. You are only allowed to have $1 billion at any given time. That does NOT mean you can only earn a billion period.

You can spend it buying houses, buying boats, buying cars, starting new businesses. Then restock up to a billion. That would stimulate the economy and encourage more spending which leads to more jobs. It would be good for everyone.

You could have the exact lifestyle you wanted, you just couldn't horde extreme amounts of money.

"Your 'permission' is not required."

You guys seem to say that as if I think I am some authority. I'm just postulating a hypothetical of a situation humanity as a whole agreed on.

Monday, April 15, 2013 4:05:59 PMWhat a bunch of bull$#!+ socialist claptrap! The richest 1% haven't "accumulated" 43% of the world's wealth; they have CREATED it. If the rich didn't have it, that does NOT mean that the poor would have it; it means that it simply would not exist, i.e., NOBODY would have it.

That money in the hands of the poor would quickly be consumed, after which there would be NOTHING to show for it. In the hands of the rich, though, it is invested in large-scale wealth PRODUCTION -- mining, farming, manufacturing, and distribution -- that elevates EVERYONE'S standard of living INCLUDING THE POOR.

You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor. If you try, you can only make EVERYONE even poorer. The poor in the US live better than the so-called middle class in any socialist $#!+hole in the world.